Skip to main content
Log in

The problem of scale in community resource management

  • Forum
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scale is a fundamental variable in most community resource management programs. This is true both in terms of scale as a management concept (i.e., local, regional, and national level management) as well as a mapping concept (i.e., units on the map per unit on the ground). Julian Steward, the father of human ecology, recognized as early as 1950 that social scientists have failed to develop methods for incorporating the effect of scale in their work. This article seeks to determine whether methods used in plant and animal ecology for assessing the effects of scale are applicable to community resource management. The article reviews hierarchy theory and multiple scales, two methods (one theoretical and the other practical) for dealing with problems that span many scales. The application of these methods to community resource management programs is examined by way of an example.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • ACSM. 1989.American Congress on Surveying and Mapping Bulletin 12:35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T., and T. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, R. 1983. Delineation of ecosystem regions.Environmental Management 7(4):365–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christian, C. S. 1958. The concept of land units and land systems. Pages 74–81in Proceedings 9th Pacific science conference, Vol. 2, November 18–30, 1957, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christian, C. S., and G. A. Stewart. 1968. Methodology of integrated surveys. Proceedings, Toulouse conference on aerial surveys and integrated studies.UNESCO Natural Resources Research 6:223–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druffel, D. P. 1977. Field and office procedures for habitat type surveys. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education Resources Development, Boulder, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, M. I., and B. V. Vinogrodov. 1990.Nature and Resources 26(1):19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, R., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J. 1989. Diagnostic tools for social forestry.Journal of World Forest Resource Management 4:61–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J., and P. Suharsono. 1986. Land, land dissection and land cover in East Java.ITC Journal 2:164–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koestler, A. 1967. The ghost in the machine. Macmillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koestler, A. 1969. Beyond atomism and holism—the concept of holon. Pages 192–232in A. Koestler and J. R. Smythies (eds.), Beyond reductionism. Hutchinson, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot, B. 1983. The fractal geometry of nature. W.H. Freeman & Company, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naveh, Z., and A. Lieberman. 1984. Landscape ecology: Theory and application. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Neill, R. 1988. Hierarchy theory and global change. Pages 29–45in T. Rosswall, R. Woodmansee, and P. Risser (eds.), Scales and global change. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Neill, R., D. L. DeAngelis, J. B. Waide, and T. F. Allen. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raintree, J. B. 1987. The state of the art of agroforestry diagnosis and design.Agroforestry Systems 5:219–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, J., and J. Sheard. 1981. Ecological land classification: A survey approach.Environmental Management 5(5):441–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semaoen, I., J. Fox, and F. Roche. 1985. Agroecosystems analysis of East Java's rainfed uplands: Key issues in the development of critical lands. Paper presented at seminar: Managing renewable resources: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Agricultural Development Council and Japan Center for International Exchange, Sapporo, 24–28 June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. 1962. The architecture of complexity.Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106:467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, J. G. 1967. Soil survey interpretation and its use. FAO, Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steward, J. H. 1950.Area research: Theory and practice. Social Science Research Council, New York, Bulletin 63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, K. H. 1972. A geographer's strength: The multiple-scale approach.The Journal of Geography 61(6):354–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. 1973. International classification and mapping of vegetation. UNESCO, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens, J. A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology.Functional Ecology 3:385–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodmansee, R. 1988. Ecosystem processes and global change. Pages 11–28in T. Rosswall, R. Woodmansee, and P. Risser (eds.), Scales and global change. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fox, J. The problem of scale in community resource management. Environmental Management 16, 289–297 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02400067

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02400067

Key words

Navigation